US Conservative Think Tank Urges Full Civilian Disarmament In The United States

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blain

member
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
993
The following article, while probably of greater urgency to American 2nd Ammendment Activists, cannot help cause concern to anyone with a genuine commitment to gun ownership rights.

Given the fact that this lengthy, sophist, (albeit well presented), paper was prepared by an influential US Conservative "think tank", I am of the opinion that this information should be broadcast as widely as possible.

Certainly no US based 2nd Ammendment Advocate can afford to be in ignorance of this report or it's poisonous "spin."

The article is way too long to be posted in it's entirity here. However, by clicking on the link below, you can view the report, and download it in PDF Format for more leisurely perusal.

The following is an extract from the article which should give you some idea of what to expect.

Communitarians, Neorepublicans, and Guns: Assessing the Case for Firearms Prohibition
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/commun1.htm ^ | 3/14/03 | Maryland Law Review

Introduction

It is high time for the federal government to outlaw gun possession by anyone except the police and the military, and to round up all firearms currently in private hands. Millions of Americans think so, but even the most aggressive of America's gun control groups have not been willing to advocate such a policy. Into the breach has stepped the Communitarian Network, arguably the most influential think tank in Washington. In a lengthy position paper, The Case for Domestic Disarmament (Domestic Disarmament), the Communitarian Network presents a forceful law-and-policy case for a gun-free America.

Domestic Disarmament is noteworthy because it is almost the only scholarly document arguing at length for confiscating all guns, rather than merely outlawing the future production of certain "bad" guns (such as handguns and so-called "assault weapons"). Domestic Disarmament is particularly important because it is a product of the Communitarian Network, the think tank that, far more than any other, has the ear of President Clinton and many other leading Democrats (and *440 some Republicans).
Moreover, Domestic Disarmament offers an entirely new vantage point from which to view the firearms issue--from the communitarian context, in which the individual's responsibilities to society are seen as more important than the unlimited exercise of rights.

This Article evaluates and responds to Domestic Disarmament and the Communitarian Network's gun prohibition agenda. In addition to discussing Domestic Disarmament, this Article considers David C. Williams's Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment, which calls for a somewhat different communitarian approach to gun policy. Williams argues that the Second Amendment poses no impediment to any form of gun control on individuals, and in the long term, the government should revive the "well regulated Militia" and encourage citizen proficiency with arms and participation in communal defense organizations.

Part I of this Article provides an overview of communitarianism and the Communitarian Network and summarizes the argument of Domestic Disarmament. Part II inquires into whether domestic disarmament is enforceable and what communitarian problems may be raised by enforceability issues. Part III sketches a variety of possible solutions to the American gun dilemma, including the communitarian militia proposals of Williams.
Part IV briefly reviews the contribution that firearms ownership may make to public safety, and Part V closely scrutinizes Domestic Disarmament's conclusion that the Second Amendment presents no barrier to firearms confiscation.

For too long, the American gun control debate has avoided the most fundamental issues. The progun and antigun lobbies both agree that there are "good" gun owners and "bad" gun owners; the main issues concern drawing a line between the two and determining what kinds of measures should be used to keep the two groups separate. In addition, the antigun lobbies argue that there are good guns (many types of rifles and shotguns) and bad guns (handguns and assault weapons) and that no gun control policy should deprive good Americans of their good guns.

Nevertheless, none of the major policy groups participating in the American gun debate argues, as does the Communitarian Network, that America's gun policy should be modeled on Japan's, in which communitarian values prevail, guns are almost entirely prohibited, and gun violence is rare.

By forcefully raising the issue of whether any Americans should have guns at all, the Communitarian Network performs a great service by inviting inquiry into the most fundamental premises of the American gun control debate. In this Article, the authors hope to advance the inquiry begun by Domestic Disarmament.
 
Communitarian - I don't even like the sound of their name.

Sounds like a kinder, gentler version of "collectivist."
 
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/commun1.htm#sn11

4. "Nasty Things May Happen": Armed Resistance.--More alarming than simple noncompliance with gun prohibition is the apparent willingness of many gun owners to fight, if necessary, for their right to bear arms. [132] The rhetoric of resistance is not confined to gun magazines, but also appears in scholarly journals. [133]

*462 How seriously should the possibility of a civil war over gun prohibition be taken? The emotions over gun control today run extremely high. The "militia movement" that is much in the news these days is a reaction, in part, to gun control legislation. [134]

The number of those currently involved with citizen militias is at least in the tens of thousands nationwide, and possibly higher. [135] Most mainstream gun owners, including most of the "hard core," do not currently belong to these militias. This is largely because many of the militias are motivated as much by other political concerns (some of them truly bizarre, such as United Nations invasion conspiracies) as they are by gun control legislation, and these concerns are not generally shared by mainstream gun owners. [136] Some analysts believe, however, that the militias are even now drawing an increasing number of mainstream gun owners to their ranks. [137] If the federal government actually attempted to disarm Americans, not only would many Americans *463 likely fight back, but the number of those who would do so could conceivably be in the millions. [138]

*464 As the specter of myriad American civilians fighting their own government to retain their gun rights were not troubling enough, there is evidence that at least some members of the armed forces would join the resistance. Many members of the armed services are gun culture types: they own firearms themselves, are convinced that Americans have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, and they take an oath to defend the Constitution from every enemy, "foreign or domestic." [139] It is therefore likely that at least some in the military would not simply look the other way as the government attempted to enforce a policy of domestic disarmament. [140] A master's thesis studying the attitudes of American soldiers found that the large majority would not obey orders to fire on citizens who resisted gun confiscation. [141]

Contrasting these hard-core members of the gun culture with the advocates of prohibitionist gun legislation "who take bourgeois Europe as a model of a civilized society," Bruce-Briggs describes the former as


a group of people who do not tend to be especially articulate or literate, and whose world view is rarely expressed in print. Their model is that of the independent frontiersman who takes care of himself and his family with no interference from the state. They are "conservative" in the sense that they cling to America's unique pre-modern tradition--a non-feudal society with a sort of medieval liberty writ large for everyman. To these people, "sociological" is an epithet. Life is tough and competitive. Manhood means responsibility and caring for your own.



This hard-core group is probably very small, not more than a few million people, but it is a dangerous group to cross. From the point of view of a right-wing threat to internal security, these are perhaps the people who should be disarmed *465 first, but in practice they will be the last. As they say, to a man, "I'll bury my guns in the wall first." They ask, because they do not understand the other side, "Why do these people want to disarm us?" They consider themselves no threat to anyone; they are not criminals, not revolutionaries. But slowly, as they become politicized, they find an analysis that fits the phenomenon they experience: Someone fears their having guns, someone is afraid of their defending their families, property, and liberty. Nasty things may happen if these people begin to feel that they are cornered. [142]


"Nasty things" would likely ensue if the government attempted to enact and enforce gun prohibition. It was, after all, government attempts to confiscate "weapons of war" at Lexington and Concord that sparked the American Revolution [143] and the Texan rebellion against Mexico. [144] If it is true, as Bruce-Briggs implies, that millions rather than mere thousands of gun owners would be involved in fighting for their gun rights, then those who foresee a speedy quashing of this rebellion are probably deluding themselves.

Many people will be incredulous, even scandalized, over the proposition that many gun owners would resist attempted disarmament. Nevertheless, a number of notable constitutional scholars have shown that this type of disobedience is not only characteristically American, but that the Second Amendment's very reason for being is to enable American citizens to resist even their own government when their civil liberties are thus assailed. [145] It was the Framers of the Constitution and the revolutionary generation, and not the 1990s "Militia of Montana," who first insisted that the only reason a government would seek to disarm its population would be to enslave it. [146]
 
The Independece Institute had Kopel, a highly respected gun rights scholar, answer a proposal advanced by the Communitarians who are anything but "conservative activists." The Communitarians hold no sway that I am aware of, why the breathlessness?
 
sorry but this sounds like a troll post to me

there is no such thing as a conservative think tank which uses the term "communitarian". that's a leftist think tank trying to sneak in below the radar.

no sale.:neener: :barf: :neener: :barf: :neener:
 
Part II inquires into whether domestic disarmament is enforceable.

They shoulda just asked me. NO!

gun culture types

Are those like freedom types?
 
This has been around for a while. I remember seeing it posted on TFL. It was either Sam or Blackhawk that posted it but I can't get into TFL to find it. But those guys are not conservatives. They were a bunch of Klinton Kronies.
 
Yes, the title of this post is inaccurate and misleading. Nowhere in this article does a "Conservative Think Tank" advocate gun confiscation. If fact, the exact opposite is true.

The Communitarian Network is a public policy think tank founded upon the philosophy of sociologist Amitai Etzioni. This group published a paper untitled "The Case for Domestic Disarmorment", in which they advanced the proposal of gun confiscation.

In the linked article, which was published in The Maryland Law Review, back in 1997, David Kopel, a pro-gun activist, refutes this paper.

Seems that one or more anti-gun groups got a hold of this article, never took the time to actually read it, or lacked the ability to comprehend it, and came to the erroneous conclusion that David Kopel proposes gun confiscation.

Touting that this article advocates gun control, is pure anti gun propaganda at it's very worst. No different then if we where to take a long, complicated, anti-gun article, ignore the content, and post it with the erroneous headline of “Anti-gun Group Advocates Vermont Style Carryâ€. :rolleyes:
 
The whole tone of the article leans toward the "we need to disarm the populace if we ever intend to subjugate them because there are way to many gun owners willing to fight for their rights and stay free citizens".

Well yeah! It sounds like someones view of a perfect liberal utopia. :mad: :barf:
 
Well, I don't pretend to know what these guys are, but I know I've never heard of them. Why are they such an important group and yet so low-profile?

Wait. . . let me guess. . . . it's a conspiracy?
 
Dirty, Stinking Anti American Collectivist/Statists

From their own site, listing their agenda,
see embedded comments in bold.

A. The Communitarian Agenda
The Communitarian Network is a public policy think tank founded upon the philosophy of sociologist Amitai Etzioni, a professor of American Studies at George Washington University. [14] Dr. Etzioni is joined by a number of like-minded academics, many of whom *442 enjoy close connections to the Washington political establishment. [15] The Communitarian Network's mission is to address what it considers the baneful societal effects of an imbalance between individual rights and social responsibilities. [16] The United States, argue communitarians, has become a place where responsibilities no longer accompany rights to the extent they once did, resulting in a fragmented society in which irresponsibility, selfishness, and violent crime run rampant. [17] These socially deleterious effects of an unrestrained individualism must therefore be reversed through the advocacy and implementation of new policies designed to further the common good. [18]


The Communitarian Network's slogan is "strong rights presume strong responsibilities." [19]


geekWithA.45: or in this case, no rights OR responsibilities


Communitarians also argue that parents should forsake consumerism, personal advancement, and greed. [20]

geekWithA.45: can anyone say blissninny utopianism?


Workplace reforms such as paid parental leave and flex schedules should be mandated. [21]

geekWithA.45: good things, to be sure, but apparently biz owners have no rights....

Additionally, communitarians propose making it more difficult for couples with children to divorce. [22]

geekWithA.45: Social stability via extra paperwork & higher lawyer fees? Bah.

Advocacy of an increased emphasis on moral education in the nation's schools is another element of the communitarian message. [23] Schools should "teach those values Americans share," [24] such as "the values of civility, sharing, and responsibility to the common good." [25]

geekWithA.45: Uh, those are NOT the values of America that I was taught. In the 3rd grade, I was taught Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness.


The Communitarian Network also advocates a number of other public policy ideas to increase public virtue and advance the common good. Included among these are campaign finance restrictions

geekWithA.45: Ah, that pesky free speach thing.

and a heightened emphasis on the importance of voting, jury duty, and paying taxes. [26] Among the most controversial proposals are the implementation of widespread sobriety checkpoints,

geekWithA.45: Papers Please! The 4th Amendment doesn't apply here!

[27] less privacy for HIV *443 carriers, [28]

geekWithA.45: Uh, do you propose to BRAND THEM?

and mandatory organ harvesting from deceased persons who had not expressly forbidden the government from appropriating their organs. [29]


geekWithA.45: WHOA! My body IS NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE!
 
IT seems that as time passes the word liberal and LIAR are converging. The only truth is as they see it. This includes the notion that the government knows best and individualism is destructive. Stalin, and Lenin tried this and it did not work.

This liberal elitist think tank did get one thing right:

someone is afraid of their defending their families, property, and liberty. Nasty things may happen if these people begin to feel that they are cornered. [142]


"Nasty things" would likely ensue if the government attempted to enact and enforce gun prohibition. It was, after all, government attempts to confiscate "weapons of war" at Lexington and Concord that sparked the American Revolution [143] and the Texan rebellion against Mexico. [144] If it is true, as Bruce-Briggs implies, that millions rather than mere thousands of gun owners would be involved in fighting for their gun rights, then those who foresee a speedy quashing of this rebellion are probably deluding themselves.


Troll for sure
 
Somehow I don't think we need to worry too much about this group. In another report called "Risk Homeostasis and the Futility of Protecting People from Themselves" they state there is no proof that any of the following items actually save lives:

Seat belts, Air Bags, Antilock Brakes, Drunk Driving Laws, Traffic Lights, and Childproof Caps on medicine bottles.

Their answer to lowering accident rates is to reward those that do not have accidents.
 
Mike in VA:
Its gotta be quilted and double ply, no expense should be spared on this issue. :)

Kharn
 
Another report from the Ministry of Crap. Big whoop.

The thread title was misleading and the argument in the paper lacked basic requirements (like a basis in common sense).

This group is just one more reason I think any slowpoke liberal with half a brain can get funding and call themselves a "think tank"

Yawn,
MJ
 
"Maryland Law Review" and "influential Conservative think".

Didn't those two together set off your tilt switch like it did mine? :rolleyes:
 
QUOTE]the Communitarian Network, the think tank that, far more than any other, has the ear of President Clinton and many other leading Democrats [/QUOTE]

Hey, wait a minute! There is no such thing as "President Clinton", so how can having his ear be important? And all those "leading Democrats" are in the minority in the House and Senate.

This document smells like it is about 5 or 6 years old. Nobody paid any attention to it, and nothing was done about it then. Why should we care about it now? It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
Wait. . . let me guess. . . . it's a conspiracy?


By the Illuminati, ZOG, NAMBLA, and several other organizations that wish to remain anonymous. :D
 
Communitarianism apparently is a real political policy. I have heard in the news that Bill Clinton was in fact a Communitarian intellectually.

One description of Communitarian policy is that individual rights were okay as long as they did not interfer with some group/s right or welfare. If the individual right interferred, then it must be suppressed.

Sounds to me like another form of collective government and suppression of individual rights, which is totally at odds with the Constitution and BOR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top